If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Miller, wearing an NRA pin and a tea party cap over his long hair, shares Trump’s concern that the election may be “rigged” by the Clinton campaign. “It is enough to skew the election. They can swing it either way,” he said, particularly because Hillary Clinton may have “the FBI working for her” in committing the fraud.

So what happens if Clinton is declared the winner? “Donald Trump is going to holler fraud if he doesn’t win,” figured Miller, who is white and says he has PTSD from “racial violence” he suffered in the military. “I think we’re on the verge of a civil war, a racial war. This could be the spark that sets it off.”

I fear Miller may be right.

Objectively, Trump is in big trouble; master handicapper Stuart Rothenberg wrote for The Post online on Tuesday that Trump’s path to electoral-college victory is “nonexistent” and said he could win fewer than 200 electoral votes.

But I spent a couple of hours before the rally in this indoor show ring talking to many Trump supporters and found them in states of denial and fury. I didn’t find one who expects Trump to lose. To varying degrees, most agreed with Trump that the election process is rigged. And some predicted ominous things if Trump loses — if not violence, a mass rejection of the legitimacy of the democratic process.

Ann Macomber, a Christian, retired teacher and Trump volunteer handing out fliers saying “Hillary Clinton is coming for your guns,” told me the voting system in Colorado has been “infiltrated”: dead people voting, voters with bogus addresses, precincts that report more votes than registered voters. “It’s happening. It’s sad,” Macomber said. “If we lose this election, we can’t trust anything in America anymore. We’re not sovereign.”

Some observers dismiss Trump’s talk of a “stolen” and “rigged” election as just more rantings of a narcissist who can’t accept that he is almost certain to lose. But the talk of election fraud is more nefarious than that and clearly an effort to destabilize the post-election environment.

In early August, Trump consigliere Roger Stone declared that there is “widespread voter fraud” and argued that “if there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate . . . we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.” In an interview with the conservative outlet Breitbart, Stone said Trump has “gotta put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical . . . bloodbath.”

Now the head of Breitbart News is the head of the Trump campaign, and Trump, who had quieted the fraud talk when he was improving in the polls, is raising it more than ever.

“Voter fraud is all too common,” Trump told a few thousand people Tuesday afternoon in Colorado Springs, but if you mention it, he said, “they say bad things about you, they call you a racist.” He scolded Republican leaders for saying “everything is peachy” with the election process and warned that this could be the year “America truly lost its independence.” Warned Trump: “It’s going to be a one-party system. This is your final shot.”

He particularly scolded the press, which “created a rigged system and poisoned the minds of so many of our voters.” But he also found corruption in voter surveys (“I don’t believe the polls anymore”) and in his opponent (“many times worse than Watergate”).

“We won’t let them stop maybe the greatest movement in the history of our country!” Trump said, prompting chants of “USA!,” some foul language shouted at the press corps and, after the rally, a mass chant of “Shame on you!” directed at the press risers.

The candidate’s reckless closing message that nothing is on the level — not Democrats, not the press, not the polls, not Republican leaders, not even the integrity of the voting process — has left many of his supporters prepared to declare the election results illegitimate.

Although this year’s presidential race has not been a season of gentle ironies, there’s one to be found in the revelation of what are alleged to be Hillary Clinton’s closed-door speeches. After all the fuss about the bombshells they might contain, they show a warmer and more relaxed figure than the guarded, elusive and sometimes evasive persona she presents to the public.

Just as refreshing, they show a disarming candor — including candor about lack of candor. Politicians need to be two-faced, Mrs. Clinton supposedly said (the campaign has not confirmed the leaked documents’ authenticity). If her frank critique of frankness proves to be more of a political nonevent than a bombshell, as has been the case to date, that will be for a good reason: Most of us know she is right, even if we don’t admit it.

When charged by Stephen Douglas with being two-faced, Abraham Lincoln replied not with a denial but with a quip (“If I had another face, do you think I would wear this one?”). Citing his example, Mrs. Clinton is reported to have said this in a 2013 speech to the National Multifamily Housing Council:

“You just have to sort of figure out how to — getting back to that word, ‘balance’ — how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that’s not just a comment about today,” she said. She added: “Politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching all of the back-room discussions and the deals, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.”

Right. In politics, hypocrisy and doublespeak are tools. They can be used nefariously, illegally or for personal gain, as when President Richard M. Nixon denied Watergate complicity, but they can also be used for legitimate public purposes, such as trying to prevent a civil war, as in Lincoln’s case, or trying to protect American prestige and security, as when President Dwight D. Eisenhower denied that the Soviet Union had shot down a United States spy plane.

During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised to televise negotiations over health care reform, but when the real work had to be done, the negotiators shut the doors. In a study of defense bills in Congress, the political scientist Colleen J. Shogan quotes a former Senate Armed Services Committee staff director as saying: “Why should we do it in the open? It would wreck the seriousness of the purpose. Staff needs to give candid views to senators, and you can’t do that in open session. Governing in the sunshine shouldn’t be applied to everything.”

Is it hypocritical to take one line in private, then adjust or deny it in public? Of course. But maintaining separate public and private faces is something we all do every day. We tell annoying relatives we enjoyed their visits, thank inept waiters for rotten service, and agree with bosses who we know are wrong.

The Japanese, whose political culture is less idealistic than our own, have a vocabulary for socially constructive lying. “Honne” (from “true sound”) is what we really believe. “Tatemae” (from “facade”) is what we aver in public. Using honne when tatemae is called for is considered not bravely honest but rude and antisocial, and rightly so. Unnecessary and excessive directness hurts feelings, foments conflict and complicates coexistence.

Modern social science makes a related distinction between shared knowledge and public knowledge. Public knowledge is information that is out there in plain and undeniable view, stuff like stock prices, weather bulletins and campaign promises. If knowledge is public, you and I both know it, and you know that I know it, and I know that you know it, and you know that I know that you know it, ad infinitum. If knowledge is merely shared knowledge, by contrast, you and I both know it, but I’m not sure if you know and you’re not sure if I know.

Shared knowledge has a very handy, if somewhat peculiar, trait: Even if we both know it, we can plausibly deny knowing it. Maybe you and I both know we dated the same person at the same time — but if neither of us is sure the other knows, we can both pretend not to know, thereby staying friends. Keeping knowledge out of the public domain can finesse all kinds of social conflicts and embarrassments. In-laws can pretend not to despise one another. Everyday life would be intolerable without public denials and mutual winks.

They are equally important in politics. Behind closed doors, negotiators can float trial balloons and make tacit offers — deniably. They can say things like, “This isn’t an offer, mind you, but just hypothetically, what if I were to suggest we could accept a Medicare cut if you could accept a capital-gains tax increase?” If you show hypothetical interest in my hypothetical offer, I can go and try it out on my caucus and constituents. If you wave me off — well, no offer was ever made, so I’m not embarrassed.

Often, the only way to get something done is to have separate private and public truths. Behind closed doors, nothing is settled until everything is settled. Until the deal is done, everyone can pretend not to have decided anything. But the moment the conversation becomes public, plausible deniability ceases. Everyone knows I’ve made an offer. Angry interest groups, adversaries in the other party, and even purists in my own party start cutting attack ads and lining up challengers to prevent a deal and defeat me.

In diplomacy, having two faces is similarly indispensable. Until recently, the existence of the United States’ use of drones for targeted killing was classified — not because it was a secret (everyone knew about it, especially the targets) but because public acknowledgment would embarrass key allies. As long as we pretended not to tell, they pretended not to know.

Mrs. Clinton’s instinct is to overprotect her privacy and over-manage her image. This makes her less relatable as a candidate, breeds suspicion, and caused her a world of grief over her email. Fair enough to criticize her on those counts.

Yet give credit where credit is due. An experienced political negotiator and former chief diplomat, she understands that hypocrisy and two-facedness, when prudently harnessed to advance negotiations or avert conflicts, are a public good and a political necessity.

Of course, she can’t say so. At least not in public. In our hearts, we know she’s right. But shush. It’s a secret.

WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

Hillary Clinton’s supporters, angry over what they regard as a lack of scrutiny of Mr. Trump by law enforcement officials, pushed for these investigations. In recent days they have also demanded that James B. Comey, the director of the F.B.I., discuss them publicly, as he did last week when he announced that a new batch of emails possibly connected to Mrs. Clinton had been discovered.

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton have argued that Mr. Trump’s evident affinity for Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — Mr. Trump has called him a great leader and echoed his policies toward NATO, Ukraine and the war in Syria — and the hacks of leading Democrats like John D. Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, are clear indications that Russia has taken sides in the presidential race and that voters should know what the F.B.I. has found.

The F.B.I.’s inquiries into Russia’s possible role continue, as does the investigation into the emails involving Mrs. Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, on a computer she shared with her estranged husband, Anthony D. Weiner. Mrs. Clinton’s supporters argue that voters have as much right to know what the F.B.I. has found in Mr. Trump’s case, even if the findings are not yet conclusive.

“You do not hear the director talking about any other investigation he is involved in,” Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Democrat of New York, said after Mr. Comey’s letter to Congress was made public. “Is he investigating the Trump Foundation? Is he looking into the Russians hacking into all of our emails? Is he looking into and deciding what is going on with regards to other allegations of the Trump Organization?”

Mr. Comey would not even confirm the existence of any investigation of Mr. Trump’s aides when asked during an appearance in September before Congress. In the Obama administration’s internal deliberations over identifying the Russians as the source of the hacks, Mr. Comey also argued against doing so and succeeded in keeping the F.B.I.’s imprimatur off the formal findings, a law enforcement official said. His stance was first reported by CNBC.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, responded angrily on Sunday with a letter accusing the F.B.I. of not being forthcoming about Mr. Trump’s alleged ties with Moscow.

“It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government — a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity,” Mr. Reid wrote. “The public has a right to know this information.”

F.B.I. officials declined to comment on Monday. Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.

At least one part of the investigation has involved Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman for much of the year. Mr. Manafort, a veteran Republican political strategist, has had extensive business ties in Russia and other former Soviet states, especially Ukraine, where he served as an adviser to that country’s ousted president, Viktor F. Yanukovych.

But the focus in that case was on Mr. Manafort’s ties with a kleptocratic government in Ukraine — and whether he had declared the income in the United States — and not necessarily on any Russian influence over Mr. Trump’s campaign, one official said.

In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia’s biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin.

F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 “look-up” messages — a first step for one system’s computers to talk to another — to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.

The most serious part of the F.B.I.’s investigation has focused on the computer hacks that the Obama administration now formally blames on Russia. That investigation also involves numerous officials from the intelligence agencies. Investigators, the officials said, have become increasingly confident, based on the evidence they have uncovered, that Russia’s direct goal is not to support the election of Mr. Trump, as many Democrats have asserted, but rather to disrupt the integrity of the political system and undermine America’s standing in the world more broadly.

The hacking, they said, reflected an intensification of spy-versus-spy operations that never entirely abated after the Cold War but that have become more aggressive in recent years as relations with Mr. Putin’s Russia have soured.

A senior intelligence official, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a continuing national security investigation, said the Russians had become adept at exploiting computer vulnerabilities created by the relative openness of and reliance on the internet. Election officials in several states have reported what appeared to be cyberintrusions from Russia, and while many doubt that an Election Day hack could alter the outcome of the election, the F.B.I. agencies across the government are on alert for potential disruptions that could wreak havoc with the voting process itself.

“It isn’t about the election,” a second senior official said, referring to the aims of Russia’s interference. “It’s about a threat to democracy.”

The investigation has treated it as a counterintelligence operation as much as a criminal one, though agents are also focusing on whether anyone in the United States was involved. The officials declined to discuss any individual targets of the investigation, even when assured of anonymity.

As has been the case with the investigation into Mrs. Clinton, the F.B.I. has come under intense partisan political pressure — something the bureau’s leaders have long sought to avoid. Supporters of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump have been equally impassioned in calling for investigations — and even in providing leads for investigators to follow.

Mr. Reid, in a letter to Mr. Comey in August, asserted that Mr. Trump’s campaign “has employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbing ties to the Russia and the Kremlin.” Although Mr. Reid cited no evidence and offered no names explicitly, he clearly referred to one of Mr. Trump’s earlier campaign advisers, Carter Page.

Mr. Page, a former Merrill Lynch banker who founded an investment company in New York, Global Energy Capital, drew attention during the summer for a speech in which he criticized the United States and other Western nations for a “hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change” in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union.

Mr. Page responded with his own letter to Mr. Comey, denying wrongdoing and calling Mr. Reid’s accusations “a witch hunt.” In an interview, he said that he had never been contacted by the F.B.I. and that the accusations were baseless and purely partisan because of his policy views on Russia. “These people really seem to be grasping at straws,” he said.

Democrats have also accused another Republican strategist and Trump confidant, Roger Stone, of being a conduit between the Russian hackers and WikiLeaks, which has published the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Mr. Podesta, the Clinton campaign manager. Mr. Stone boasted of having contacts with the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, and appeared to predict the hacking of Mr. Podesta’s account, though he later denied having any prior knowledge.

Mr. Stone derided the accusations and those raised by Michael J. Morell, a former C.I.A. director and a Clinton supporter, who has called Mr. Trump “an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” In an article on the conservative news site Breitbart, Mr. Stone denied having links to Russians and called the accusations “the new McCarthyism.”

Conservatives are taking their lumps with more grace than I thought they would. Perhaps the pleasure of seeing Hillary and the entire Clintonone Family go down—one hopes never to rise again—provides significant, and unexpectedly powerful, consolation. I know it would have for me had I been anti-Trump.

However, a strain of residual bitterness remains that says: “Any Republican would have won.” This is the logical extension of the pre-November 8 argument, “Trump is the only Republican in that field who could have lost to Hillary.”

I’m not buying it. First, what makes anyone think that the man who won all those primaries, against the “best Republican field in history” (we were told endlessly), would have run worse in the general against all the others in that defeated field? True, Trump was not racking up huge majorities in most of those primaries.

But by definition, his opponents weren’t either: they were doing worse. How does that translate into a later big win? Trump, in Paul Ryan’s words, “heard a voice that no one else did.” He was able turn that into enthusiasm and votes. Why should we expect that the others would have, come November, accomplished with the whole electorate what they could not accomplish with their own party between February and June?

A main anti-Trump argument all along was that Trump would be a loser on the magnitude of Goldwater or McGovern. The point here is not to recriminate or name names. It’s to note that many of the people who made that argument have now shifted its terms. The new twist goes: Trump is so bad, it proves that any of the others, all of whom were better, would have won going away.

Really? The election turned on four states, one of which no Republican had won since 1984 (Wisconsin), two since 1988 (Michigan, Pennsylvania), and one since 2004 (Ohio)—the latter by a mere 2 percent, or 100,000 votes. If that one state had flipped, John Kerry would have been president. Trump by contrast won Ohio by almost eight points. And, with the exception of an Ohio-Pennsylvania combination, he would have had to lose three of those four states to lose the election.

Who else was in a position to keep every state Romney won, add Florida and Iowa, plus at least two of the Rust Belt Four? I won’t go through the entire, overstuffed field. I’ll just look at a few of the more prominent candidates, in order of their dropping out.

Scott Walker—At least he was from the upper Midwest, so he might seem the most likely. But he had two fatal flaws. First, his position on immigration began as terrible and evolved into merely incoherent. At best, he’s never thought about the issue. At worst, like his fellow Wisconsinite Paul Ryan, he’s an open-borders guy. Whatever the case, as the early campaign progressed, he realized that he had to move right on the issue and tried to do so, but never convinced anyone he was sincere. Trump by contrast, for all his inconsistencies, came off as sincerely committed to the issue. That surely helped him win those Big Four. Second, for all Walker’s apparent talents as a governor, he never showed the requisite charisma or stage presence to make it as a national candidate. Say what you will about Trump, he has those qualities in spades.

Jeb Bush—Really? Does a case need to be made here? More war, more immigration, more trade. Everything you didn’t like about Romney and McCain, only more. In what possible way did this fit the national mood, much less the mood of the Republican base or the Party’s working class converts?

Marco Rubio—The strongest case here is that he outpolled Clinton nationally the entire time he was in the race. Is that decisive? I think not. Do I need to remind anyone about the limits of polling exposed by this election? That aside, even if every Rubio-Clinton head-to-head poll had been accurate, they were taken eight months before the actual vote. Why should we believe those numbers would have held? Especially since Rubio, no less than Jeb, was for the same more-more-more program that the base hates. And, unlike Jeb, Rubio had not merely his fingerprints but his name on the Gang of Eight bill.

John Kasich—Perhaps he would have won Ohio (though friends who know the state very much dispute this). But otherwise has campaign had two defining characteristics. First, he was running the Huntsman 2012, McCain 2000 strategy: I hate and am embarrassed by my Party. No wonder he didn’t get the nomination! We’re supposed to believe he would have done better in the general? Held all of Romney’s states (North Carolina?) and picked up either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and Michigan? Not likely, because the other characteristic of his campaign was to further the donor class agenda, just like Jeb and Marco, only with a greater left wing tilt.

That leaves Ted Cruz, the last man standing. Here I think there really was a chance at a Goldwater-level defeat. One may agree with all or most of Cruz’s positions, as I do, but understand those positions are no longer (if they ever were) capable of building a national majority. Cruz was the candidate of the pure. Purist Republicanism has been turning off blue collar voters for a generation. It’s impossible to imagine Ted Cruz winning even one of the Rust Belt states that Trump won, while it’s quite possible to imagine him losing Florida and even North Carolina.

Honorable Mention: Mitt Romney—Hahahahaha. No, seriously: Hahahahaha. I firmly believe that Romney is a good, even virtuous man. In 2012, I voted for him without the slightest reservation and even with some enthusiasm. But was Mr. Private-Equity-Layoff-King going to flip Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin in 2016? Hahahahaha.

No, none of these guys would have beaten Hillary. Trump won for many reasons, not least that he saw the essential connectivity between trade, war, and immigration and how they are felt and interpreted by a hitherto ignored class of voters. None of the other candidates even came close, or attempted, anything like that. There are other reasons why Trump won and they could not have. But that’s the biggest.

This is a talking point that Conservatism, Inc. needs to drop. Rather than medicating themselves with this nonsense, they should continue to take consolation and even joy in the glorious fact of Clinton, Inc.’s demise. That and expand their imaginations to look for ways they might celebrate and contribute to at least some, if not all, of Trump’s coming victories.
.

November 9, 2016

On November 8th, 2016, America arrived at a fork in the road: turn Left, and America would become a majority non-white nation, with everything that entails — turn Right, and perhaps America could be saved by halting white demographic replacement. All we needed was a Republican who had the vision to see the problem, the courage to do something about it, and the political skill to get into the White House. In short, we needed a miracle. Only a god could save us. Or a God Emperor.

It was a moment of decision long predicted by far-sighted conservatives from Peter Brimelow and Patrick Buchanan to Wilmot Robertson all the way back to Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant.

The Democrats have been working for more than 50 years to create a permanent Democratic majority by promoting non-white immigration from the Third World. This is a sound strategy, based on enduring non-white voting preferences. For instance, blacks in America routinely give more than 90% of their votes to Democrats. Hispanics routinely give more than 60% of their votes to Democrats.

This means that as non-white populations rise, Republicans will become less and less competitive. Already, they are not even bothering to run candidates in majority non-white districts in California and elsewhere around the country. If this demographic transition continues, eventually it will be simply impossible for Republicans to be elected president.

This would be the death knell for everything conservatives hold dear. Imagine, for instance, the fate of the Second Amendment in a Supreme Court appointed by a permanent Democratic administration.

But mainstream Republicans have always been in denial. “That day will never come,” they said for decades. Then, in the 1990s, they switched their line to, “There’s nothing we can do about it, except reach out to non-whites.” The common denominator of both positions: do nothing.

Republicans either evaded the problem for fear of being called “racists” or actively colluded with the Democrats in order to undermine American wages and replicate the low-wage, low-tech plantation economy model in America. Bribery, blackmail, and treason cannot be ruled out as well.

Trump was our last chance to stop the Democrats from electing a new people. If Hillary Clinton got in, she would have amnestied tens of millions of illegal aliens, opened the floodgates of the Third World even wider, and made it impossible to preserve America’s white majority and the culture, economic system, and political institutions created by European Americans. Then White Nationalists would have had to go to Plan B: creating white ethnostates by breaking up America.

But make no mistake: despite the hysteria of the Left, America has not elected an Alt Right shitlord. Donald Trump is a nationalist and a populist, yes, but he is also a civic nationalist — not a racial nationalist — and a pragmatic centrist.

Trump represents exactly what the American people want: a government that combines center-Right values and political realism, a center-Left welfare state, a non-interventionist and realist foreign policy, a willingness to intervene in the economy to preserve the middle class, and a commitment to patriotism and national greatness.

The Republicans and Democrats had a gentlemen’s agreement never to offer us what we want. All we were given is another increasingly small portion of elitist globalism, elaborately plated with a few decorative sprigs or sprinkles of populism.

Those days are over. Trump has permanently realigned American politics. Henceforth, the choice will be between nationalism/populism and globalism/elitism. Trump will not forget the betrayal of the Republican establishment and the conservative intelligentsia (such as it is). There will be a new wave of nationalist-populists rising behind him to replace them. Their time is done.

It should have surprised no one that Trump’s acceptance speech signaled a shift toward the center. Again, he is not the Right-wing extremist his enemies made him out to be. And the Alt Right is not the powerful force the Republican cucks and Democratic Kool-Aid drinkers have made us out to be. The Alt Right is not going to be riding Trump’s coattails into positions of political power, and he’d brush us off if we even tried. Just look at how David Duke fared in Louisiana.

Under the first Trump administration, the role of the Alt Right is to be the loyal opposition. We understand the real significance of Trump’s election, perhaps better than Trump himself. This is white America’s revolt against demographic Armageddon.

But in four years, many of the whites who elected Trump will be dead, and many of the children of the non-whites who voted against him will turn 18. That means that Trump must take action immediately. We can’t wait to build a wall. On day one of his presidency, he has to begin enforcing all existing immigration laws. He has to stop the invasion and deport between 30 and 50 million illegals and their families. That will give white America — and White Nationalism — a few decades of breathing room.

It would be inhumane to break up families, you say? That’s why we’ll send them all back together.

Trump’s ban on Muslim immigration is a very popular idea. But many Americans are not comfortable targeting a religiously-defined group. It might not even be Constitutional. Fine then. Let’s have a total and complete ban on all immigration, until we figure out what’s going on. If we can’t single out Muslims, then the overriding necessity of keeping them out dictates that we stop all immigration.

But what if there’s another Holocaust? Thank goodness, this time Jews can go to Israel.

If Trump is going to be reelected — and if Donald Jr. is going to be elected in 2024 (I might as well be the first to put that one out there) — we are going to have to purge and gerrymander the electorate and create a permanent Republican majority. Some suggestions:

Non-citizens cannot be allowed to vote. Trump should refuse to seat the California congressional delegation because the state allowed non-citizens to vote. All of California is a rotten borough, and until it cleans up its voter rolls, we might as well extend the wall around it. This goes for any other state or electoral district that allows non-citizens to vote.

Create new, reliably Republican states: Northern California should become Jefferson. Upstate New York should break away from NYC and Long Island. Southern Illinois should break away from Chicago’s orbit. That alone would mean six more Republican senators, as well as additional Republican Representatives and Electoral College votes.

Purge the voter rolls of dead people, duplicate voters, and felons — and vigorously prosecute and jail those who commit voter fraud.

Decrease opportunities for electoral fraud by eliminating mail-in ballots and early voting, requiring valid ID that proves citizenship, installing facial recognition technology to prevent the same people from voting multiple times with different IDs, and making voting machine software and hardware completely transparent and open source.

Electing Donald Trump to his first term was just the battle for Helm’s Deep. The battle for Middle Earth is about to begin.

The election of Trump merely moved the tipping point of the Mighty Evil Empire somewhere by months, not years.

I was pleasantly surprised when Trump won -- I thought that the "Five Fs" of felons, faggots, feminists, foreigners and fraud would tip the scales to Crooked Killery the Evil Wicked Bitch. So lets say that in two months the god-Emperor Trump ascends to the highest office in the Empire. What then?

It is agreed by both White Nationalists and our jewdayo-saxon globalonial enemies out to destroy us as a People that Trump is not a racist or a jew hater. Politically we are at best in the same situation as in 2001 before the 9-11 ZOG false-flag event expanded and bled-out the Empire. Demographically we are in no better shape than in 2014, ten days after the mid-term [s]elections Pharoah Obongo refused to enforce Congress's immigration laws. Yes, some of the beaners are self-deporting. Yet after a week or so the ZOGling media and leadership is kvetching about how the god-Emperor doesn't get to undo their long-running shit.

Having been in the bowel Movement since Waco, I can assure anyone listening that like Lenin at the third Communist Congress in 1922 or so saying that out of 100 Bolsheviks that 70 of them were fools and 29 of the rest being criminals and only one being a "true Bolshevik" that much is the same in our bowel Movement. How exactly are we going to bring about a change sufficient to save our People from Imperial collapse in which the Empire collapses into a welter of Civil War II and the loss of sustainability to feed a third of a billion of ZOGling whigger (120 million) and mamzer (200 million) ass-clowns and the rest of the world of 8 billions? Shouldn't we rather than try to change the inevitable that we should "embrace the suck" of the flow of History?

Now I'm going to suggest that none of this is going to happen. I'm going to suggest that ZOG/Babylon the Third and Final is going to collapse -- be it within a year or four or eight. I'm going to go so far as to suggest that given a financial collapse and with Peak Oil (and more importantly with Peak Soil) that the new sustainability with early 1900s efficient Amish farming methods will be maximum of 120 million with a world population of a billion. And when there isn't enough food to feed more than 200 million Chinks or 100 million Indians or 60 million Africans or 100 million Europeans or 100 million muzzies or 100 million mestizos combined with the breakdown of civil society into warlordism, that charity will begin -- and end at home. As probably the only bowel-Movement activist who has not only been in the Army in a tactical nuclear-missile fire-direction unit, and a truck driver but a $900 combine operator, I know well the insecurity of the logistics and agricultural sustainability of the Empire. I think that the break-up of the Empire will lead to 10-20 million ex-whiggers and Ten Thousand Warlords.

So what to do? Let everyone in our Movement do what works for now which they are able to do. Let us have the serenity to accept that which we cannot change, the courage to change to our own purposes that which we can change, in most cases incrementally, and wisdom the know the difference, as some German doctor of philosophy said. Our enemies are not Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Lenin, and as they destroy the foundations of their Empire, as Hillary and Obongo are doing, let us go along with the inevitable flow of History, wherein every Empire following its imperative to destroy their Founding Stock, invariably destroy themselves. As Dr. Lothrup Stoddard, in his masterpiece "The Revolt Against Civilization" noted, revolutions are not made by clueless herd-animal majorities but by disciplined relentless ruthless minorities who know their own minds and what they want.

The purpose of our largely dysfunctional bowel Movement is to relentlessly criticize, agitate, and enhance white-identity politics so that there is no intention on the part of even the stupidest whigger to keep this Empire of muds afloat. Every Empire destroys itself by destroying their Founding Stock. Let the Founding Stock end the Empire first.

The election of Trump merely moved the inevitable tipping point of the collapse of the Mighty Evil Empire somewhere by months, not years.

Hillary: “Being the mastermind of the so-called Arab Spring that only
brought chaos, death and destruction to the Middle East and North
Africa?”

Trump: “No the other one:”

Hillary: “Leaving four Americans to die in Benghazi?”

Trump: “No the other one:”

Hillary: “Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?”

Trump: “No the other one:”

Hillary: “The funding and arming of terrorists in Syria, the destruction
and destabilization of that nation, giving the order to our lapdogs in
Turkey and Saudi Arabia to give sarin gas to the “moderate” terrorists
in Syria that they eventually used on civilians, and framed Assad, and
had it not been for the Russians and Putin, we would have used that as a
pretext to invade Syria, put a puppet in power, steal their natural
resources, and leave that country in total chaos, just like we did with
Libya?

Hillary: “Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3
months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “The NSA monitoring citizens?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “Threats to all of Bill’s former mistresses to keep them quiet?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean the INSIDER TRADING of the Tyson chicken deal I did
where I invested $1,000 and the next year I got $100,000?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean when Bill met with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, just before my hearing with the FBI to cut a deal?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean the one where my IT guy at Platte River Networks asked Reddit for help to alter emails?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “You mean where the former Haitian Senate President accused me and my foundation of asking him for bribes?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean that old video of me laughing as I explain how I got
the charges against that child rapist dropped by blaming the young girl
for liking older men and fantasising about them. Even though I knew the
guy was guilty?

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean that video of me coughing up a giant green lunger into my drinking glass then drinking it back down?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean that video of me passing out on the curb and losing my shoe?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean when I robbed Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party
Nomination by having the DNC rig the nomination process so that I would
win?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “You mean how so many people that oppose me have died in mysterious ways?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “Travel Gate? When seven employees of the White House Travel
Office were fired so that friends of Bill and mine could take over the
travel business? And when I lied under oath during the investigation by
the FBI, the Department of Justice, the White House itself, the General
Accounting Office, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee,
and the Whitewater Independent Counsel?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “The scandal where (while I was Secretary if State) the State
Department signed off on a deal to sell 20% of the USA’s uranium to a
Canadian corporation that the Russians bought, netting a $145 million
donation from Russia to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 speaking
gig for Bill from the Russian Investment Bank that set up the corporate
buyout? That scandal?”

Trump: “No, the other one.”

Hillary: “That time I lied when I said I was under sniper fire when I got off the plane in Bosnia?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “That time when after I became the First Lady, I improperly
requested a bunch of FBI files so I could look for blackmail material on
government insiders?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “That time when Bill nominated Zoe Baird as Attorney General,
even though we knew she hired illegal immigrants and didn’t pay payroll
taxes on them?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “When I got Nigeria exempted from foreign aid transparency
guidelines despite evidence of corruption because they gave Bill
$700,000 in speaking fees?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “That time in 2009 when Honduran military forces allied with
rightist lawmakers ousted democratically elected President Manuel
Zelaya, and I as then-Secretary of State sided with the armed forces and
fought global pressure to reinstate him?”

Trump: “No, the other one:”

Hillary: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I’ve got it! When I stole the
White House furniture and silverware when Bill left Office?”

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Top strategists from the campaigns of Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton, interrupting each other and sometimes raising their voices, engaged in an angry debate on Thursday about how Mr. Trump pulled off his upset victory.

Emotions were still raw at the campaign post-mortem, held at Harvard’s Institute of Politics, particularly over the influence of Stephen K. Bannon, who left Breitbart News — which he has called a “platform” for the white nationalist alt-right — to help run Mr. Trump’s campaign.

That provoked the Clinton campaign’s director of communications, Jennifer Palmieri, to respond, “If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician, I am more proud to have lost.”

Mr. Bannon was scheduled to participate in the event but did not attend. That did not stop several hundred demonstrators from protesting him Wednesday evening outside Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, where the post-mortem was held as part of a two-day conference.

With campaign managers and pollsters talking over one another and a large crowd of campaign veterans from the news media looking on, Ms. Palmieri said her proudest moment from the campaign was a speech Mrs. Clinton gave in Nevada condemning the alt-right.

“I would rather lose than win the way you guys did,” Ms. Palmieri said.

Kellyanne Conway, who was Mr. Trump’s third and final campaign manager, asked, “How exactly did we win?”

She answered her own question: by connecting with voters in places “where we were either ignored or mocked roundly by most of the people in this room.”

“Do you think I ran a campaign where white supremacists had a platform?” Ms. Conway asked Ms. Palmieri. “You’re going to look me in the face and tell me that?”

Ms. Conway went on, pointing out Mrs. Clinton’s failings. “Do you think you could have just had a decent message for the white working-class voters?” she asked the Clinton advisers. “How about it’s Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t connect with people? How about they had nothing in common with her? How about you had no economic message?”

Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s pollster, accused the Trump campaign of using “dog whistles” about immigrants and minorities to appeal to white voters in battleground states. Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, disputed the notion that Mr. Trump won primarily by appealing on economic issues, citing exit polls in Michigan and Wisconsin showing Mrs. Clinton carried more voters who ranked the economy as their top issue.

The highly charged exchange was followed by a more restrained conversation between Ms. Conway and Mr. Mook, moderated by the CNN host Jake Tapper. CNN will broadcast the discussion on Sunday.

But it was the more raucous session earlier in the day where the passions of the campaign still seemed at a barely contained boil.

The participants, half a dozen from each campaign who faced each other while seated at two tables, argued about whether Mr. Trump had won a mandate. “You won the Electoral College; don’t pretend you have a mandate,” Mr. Benenson said. “Two and a half million more Americans thought she was a better candidate.”

“Hey guys,” Ms. Conway replied. “We won. Why is there no mandate?”

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers argued repeatedly that two public letters by James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, about Mrs. Clinton’s emails less than two weeks before Election Day pushed enough undecided voters away from her to swing the election. They also said that voters were seeking fundamental change in Washington, a strong headwind Mrs. Clinton could never overcome.

In a rare point of agreement, both campaigns faulted the news media. They said leading newspapers and TV networks were so convinced Mr. Trump was unelectable that they never took him seriously. That led to “hyper-fixation” on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server, Mr. Mook said.

“Mr. Trump had a unique ability to speak directly to the American people and go past the media, whether in 140 characters or making a statement somewhere,” Mr. Bossie said.

The Trump strategists repeatedly said the Clinton campaign had tried to disqualify Mr. Trump based on his temperament and statements, while misunderstanding the appeal of his promise to keep Americans safe from terrorism at home and abroad.

“They wanted to frame the race as, ‘Do you trust him to have his finger on the button?’” said Tony Fabrizio, Mr. Trump’s pollster.

“At the end of the day, what a lot of voters didn’t buy was that it was ever going to be a time where you have to worry about his finger on the button,” he said. “This wasn’t Barry Goldwater.”

“He’s the president-elect, so that’s presidential behavior,” she said.

At one point, Ms. Conway threw up her hands in frustration at the close scrutiny of the campaign. “Everybody wants to go back in a time machine and do things differently so this result that nobody saw coming won’t come somehow,” she said.